The troop type is indeed monster, but as you quoted from the book it follows the rules for BOTH characters and monster models. It does not change from "character" to "monster" because "character" is not a troop type. The troop type in this case changes from "infantry" to "monster". In both cases, it is considered a character. So in other words, if a spell could only effect monsters it would effect a skink chief on a stegadon, but not a skink chief on foot. If a spell can only effect a character, it would still effect the chief on stegadon AND the skink chief on foot. Finally if a spell effects only infantry, it would effect the skink chief on foot, but not the mounted one. From wikipedia... "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects." I think the Lore of Shadows itself suggests that we abide by this principle, since GW stole the name for the 6th spell! Simply put, if a character riding a monster follows all rules for characters and monsters, and the spell can target characters with NO other restrictions stated, then we must conclude it can be used on monster mounted characters unless the spell specifically contradicts this. Thanks to SanDiegoSurrealist and Cravenus for quoting the rules that have definitively concluded this matter.
Well said, Caneghem. After reading through this extensive thread, I'm gonna have to go with you on this. I was skeptical on the first few pages, but by the end (and based on the evidence presented from the rulebook), if I come across this in gaming it will fly (no pun intended ) unless GW FAQ's it. Good discussion though guys! I'm new to this forum and like all of the insight you all bring to Lizardmen.
Page 104 of the Main Rule Book - A character and mount are treated as a Single Character Model for all rules purposes... what other declaration do you need man? you target character model, the skink on stegadon is character, nothing wrong done, than the spell says it flyes, unles you will find something that states that mounted monsters cant flye he can fly. BTW what do you think about HE prince on dragon? as you said special rules dont benefit rider and vise versa, so you want to say that model cant fly because the rider doesnt have fly? p.s. sorry for my gramar, im not native speaker and im at war with grammar of any language even my native and i just dont have the feel i need to spend ~30min in writing a post that will be corectly written but the idea is the same and you can understand it if its written diferently or not.
Alright, fine, so by your logic. I cast a spell saying "all mounts in range gain +1 attack" so now, it's actually all mounts and all riders/crew because they're all 1 model? And as a note: it doesn't change the monsters type to character, just the characters type to monster, so its essentially, a character/monster on a monster. not a character/monster on another character/monster. unless you have a monstrous mount who's also a character(grimlock should be because he's named after a dinobot) Don't worry about the grammar thing, I was kinda feeling a bit trollish that day.
I used this tactic yesterday to fly my Steg into the back field on a TK army. Mr.Steg then proceeded to run down unit after unit of skeleton archers, was brilliant! I was also discussing this tactic with a few people and they brought up a couple other ideas for other armies- You could double fly move a Dragon and Rider, or fly a Chariot there are a whole realm of possibilities for a spell that until 8th was pretty much a throw away. Cheers
There is not spell that says that so not a relevant argument. Transformation of Kadon would be an example of where GW has specified that it can only be cast on the model on foot. Cheers
it was an example, cool story bro, you should tell it at bars. and ill just leave you with this Q: Can spells that pick out individual models, even if they are in a unit, choose what is hit when targeting a model with multiple locations? For example The Fate of Bjuna is cast at an Orc Warboss on a Wyvern, the caster can choose to target the Warboss or the Wyvern and it will be resolved against the Toughness of the target. (Reference) A: Yes
Spells that target "a single model" are a bit different from spells that target "a friendly character." GW's definition of "character" now includes the mount as per the rules previously quoted. If we applied the above FAQ as RAW to steed of shadows (despite it applying to a different type of spell), then we could have the oldblood on carnosaur targeted with steed of shadows and flying off his mount, or the carnosaur flying out from under the oldblood. It is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that GW will FAQ the spell in contradiction of the RAW. As passionately as we on forums debate these things, someone at GW will eventually just make a snap-decision about what they want the rule to mean, based on whatever arbitrary reason they have. Sometimes they even contradict the original intent of the rule, as they did with the Terradon drop rocks ability on the charge (which at the start of 8th edition was re-FAQ'd back to RAI). Before the FAQ, I was arguing till blue in the face that the drop rocks rule clearly said "remaining moves phase", but others saw it as poorly worded enough to allow them to be dropped on the charge. Then the FAQ just said, "sure why not!" But a healthy debate is always a good way to pre-empt arguments that might happen in a game, and I think we all learn the rules better this way as we advocate for either side. It's a lot like being a lawyer.. with GW as the judge. In this analogy, the judge is wearing headphones and checking his e-mail while we make our cases.
I can see how they are different, but it is the same if your using the "its all the same model" defense even if while being the same model you attack each part separately(as per the BRB). At this point I'm just trying to understand how someone couldn't understand that split profile models are affected differently than just saying "its all the same thing"
It is obvious you have your mind made up on the subject and no amount of convincing, short of an FAQ, is going to change your mind, which is fine. So bottom line dude is if you don’t want to fly your Steg you don’t have to, no one is trying to force you. That being said: I showed this rules to all 3 judges in my local league, guys who have been playing Warhammer for years, some since 3rd and 4th edition, and the owner of my local shop who has been playing and selling the game from the beginning, and they all agree that in its current wording “yes” you in fact can fly a character and his monster mount using this spell; and until there is a FAQ specifically stating one way or the other it is allowable. Remember at the end of the day it is just a game.
It's not about the flying stegadon at this point, its about all the other rules the "its all one model" would break. I can say EXACTLY the same thing about you, and exactly the same thing about people in my area, that its far easier, and rules supported, that while its 1 model, the separate stat lines within it(referred to as a "split profile" by some weird company called games workshop(whoever they are) are separately targetable entities, and spells can and DO affect them independently, ALSO supported by the rules. And on the subject of rules, no one has come up with any support on the opposing side of this little debate EXCEPT that its one model, and as I've pointed out, nowhere in the spell does it say anything about a model, so why its being used I have no idea. So by all means defend your position, but do try something other than "but, but, but 1 model *point*" I'm a little tired of pointing out to you how many ways the rules say that a ridden monster DOESN'T behave like one.
The reason the rules point to specific ways they don't behave as a single model, is because it is delineating EXCEPTIONS. The blanket "single model" rule is laid down, then the exceptions are listed for specific spell types. A more complete rules quote follows p. 104 of the BRB "A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes, except as noted below. So that's pretty clear, let's see what exceptions there are for monsters. p. 105 of the BRB "If a character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models. A character on a ridden monster cannot join other units. Whilst a cavalry model is treated as a single model for the purposes of hitting and wounding, a character and his ridden monster can be attacked separately. As the battle goes on, the character might find himself unhorsed... etc." So yes, when you are talking about attacking a character on a monster, you do get to target separate parts of the model. It never says anything about buff spells like steed of shadows, though perhaps it should. Regardless, without them listing an exception, we go with the default.
This isn't talking about in combat thats a separate entry in the rules(pg 106 monstrous mounts in combat). And notice that it says that its only a single model for hitting and wounding. Either way the FAQ is pretty specific about how single target spells interact with monstrous mounts, treating the different components as different targets. The spell interacts exactly as the example above, with the exception that the spell can only be cast on the character portion of the model, not the mount, nor crew(in the case of a stegadon). By all means, please explain why this FAQ entry doesn't effect this question. I was actually thinking about this at work, and wondered what your interpretation would be, not that it has any real relevance to the current discussion(the question I mean, not your opinion on it). considering the ridden monster is 1 model, and you contend that the 1 model is wholly affected by any spells cast at the character, how would you resolve the same spell cast at a character inside a building? two words, flying buildings.
oh man just rereade the Caneghem post it said everything that is had to been sad and you just keep telling the same faq. And all senses ones faqs answer doesnt make anything clearer because it doesnt speak about the spell we are talking about. Diferences is that with that faq that you written you hit something that you can choose and as Caneghem said this is an EXEPTION for the general rule, do you know what the meaning of exeption is? doubt it because you keep rubing it again and again and people tell you that thats an exeption of a rule. few ecxamples: you target that shadow steed on char on foot, he flyes away from the unit because you targeted the char one model, so he flyes away. second, you target char on a cav mount he flyes way from a unit (if he was in a unit) with his mount, ifyou cast fate of bunja you use the characteristics of the char because for the EXEPTION from the rule. third, the char is on a mounstrus mount the same happens as above. you target on a dwarf lord on a shield he flyes away with the shield and the berears because its one model with split profiles you cast bunja you use lords characteristics. (unless theres a rule that states that he cannot leave the unit never as the same with slann in TG unit) Remember you buy the mount in charsprofile when you make your roster. and you still didint answer my question. with your logic only the char can fly so thus he has to leave the equipment behinde him when he flyes, is this true? because in BRB in chars entry theres nothing written aout equipment eing part of char, but aout mounts it is... And if you still denie this after all people said everything is the same as saing 2+2=5, if one dumdum believes so it doesnt mean its true. this matter can only be settled with faq for you. As all elder players and tournament/shop managers agreed that steg can flye. In my country the same, in SanDiegoSurrealist club is the same so just stop pissing agains the wind man. Ifthe faq says it cant flye you can dance your victory dance home, but nowass rules go he can flye.
smooth as sandpaper dude, the fate of bunga was an example for that FAQ entry, the entry wasn't specifically about that spell, it was about spells that affect individual models(including ones that target characters, but ill admit thats a bit of conjecture) and how they interact with ridden monsters(or chariots for that matter, or any unique model that involves these interactions. HELL you'd be better off USING the FAQ and saying, FINE then the spell stops targeting the character and starts targeting the mount, but no, your too dumb for that. And since we've apparently degraded into character assassination INSTEAD of explaining things like WHY its an exception to the FAQ props on you, *thumbs up*. As far as equipment goes thats probably the only smart thing you've said in here, yes his equipment goes, as per the rules as goes the character so does his equipment, so I assume his mount is equipment it goes too, sure. I then asked, so you cast panns impenetrable pelt on the character, the mount and all the crew receive the bonus as well? and you answered with.... nothing great. As far as caneghams last post he did great, he quoted rules he bolded things up, but he pretty much just stated "its 1 model hurr" which is fine, at least hes using the rules, I've only been trying to explain to you guys the following notion: "Just because its 1 model, DOES NOT mean that ALL spells that target a character, or 1 model, or a mount affect the WHOLE model" But you're apparently too dumb to understand that so, poo on you. I'm pretty much done in here, since only 1 of you guys can hold a reliable discussion without name calling. so I'll just leave you to it, you guys interpret the rules how you want, if you don't want to hear opposing viewpoints, thats cool, i mean it only makes GW write stupid and vague FAQ entries for you(probably like "can we measure at any time?"). P.S. as far as buildings go, i think it would just let the character exit the building, not make it fly(which would be cool). P.S.S. you totally didn't answer my question about WHY this interaction is an exception to the FAQ in your post, i cry P.S.S.. I'm pretty sure all your little friends have been playing 8th ed as long as anyone else around here, so the fact that they played in 1st ed is the equivalent of saying "well i play warmachines and in that different rules system........" (I.EE. put your E-PEEN away Although paralleling your thoughts, since neither side here will see eye to eye, no one will be happy w/o an FAQ
First, it doesn't not apply to this situation because it is a type of attack spell. You are making a huge assumption that the question in the FAQ applies broadly to every type of spell. In reality, I think you can clearly see that it is talking about sniping spells in enemy units. It is making an exception for spells like Fate of Bjuna. Your entire point rests on the fact that Steed of Shadows is just like Fate of Bjuna. Seriously? The snipe spell FAQ you keep quoting only reinforces the BRB quote from page 105, that talks about how they can be ATTACKED separately. You seem to be willing to contend that Steed of Shadows is a form of attack, and thus you "pick out" which part of the combined model you want to target. If SoS is not a form of attack, then no, you do not pick out what to target. If you are honest about the true purpose of the Fate of Bjuna FAQ, you would say it is there to answer the question of "do I have to randomize between the wyvern and orc boss, when hitting them with snipey spells?" Characters in buildings - If the rule book had a separate entry for characters in buildings, and said that they counted as a single model AND followed all rules for characters and buildings, then yes. The rule book has no such thing, alas!
My last post didn't address your post right above it, sorry was in a hurry. I think you might gain some ground referencing a spell like "The Savage Beast of Horros" which targets a charcter and adds +3 attacks and +3 strength. Like SoS, it is an augment spell that targets "a character." Off the top of my head, that would be your best argument here. Since obviously the mount doesn't also get the boost, why then would SoS not work the same way? The argument against this is on page 82, under cavalry I'm aware, but it talks about split profiles in general and how movement is based on the mount but attacks and the like are individual. But yeah, I think we've beaten this to death already. I will concede that the wording is vague enough to go either way, barring an FAQ. Personally I think it is admirable Cravenus that you argue for what you believe to be true in spite of what a "consensus" tells you is true. It just so happened that this time my personal belief coincided with the consensus, but I've been on the other side as well. We should all argue as passionately for what we believe in every facet of life, majority be damned. If we all did our due dilligence, a lot less nonsense would be passed off as "truth by consensus."
I'ts cool. You may be right either way, it's up to how you rule the movement of Sos being, moving the character, or the model as a whole(since in this instance they're kinda the same). I will contend the following 2 things. I treat any spell as an attack for the purposes of the ridden monster entry(unless its a magic missile). It's just easier that way because their use of the word attack is vague, is it only something that rolls to hit? wound? what? It should really say targeted instead of attack, it would be much less vague. If the spell directly targeted the model(instead of the character) or said "move the model" I wouldn't be arguing the point, my only contention here was that it didn't target the model, but targeted, effectively, a stat line(the character). So yeah, i think were in sorta agreement, you may be able to fly, I guess it'll be up to your club how you rule it , until GW FAQs it. Lets hope they don't screw up... again. I do want to know 1 thing, how would you rule the 2 lore of beasts spells that target in the same way as this one? Would they buff just the character, or the character, crew, and mount? I don't want to be argumentative, i just want to know I edited this after the below post its up in italics.